July 15, 2013 | by Chris Johnson
Calif. court denies request for stay on marriage equality
Sandy Stier, Kris Perry, David Boies, Chad Griffin, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, marriage equality, Proposition 8, Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, Prop 8, California, Supreme Court, gay news, Washington Blade

Prop 8 plaintiff Kris Perry addresses onlookers after a historic ruling at the U.S. Supreme Court. (Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key)

The California Supreme Court has denied a request from anti-gay groups to place a stay on marriage equality in the Golden State, although litigation will continue on whether same-sex marriages can continue statewide.

On Monday, the state high court issued a decision denying a request from Alliance Defending Freedom and ProtectMarriage.com to place a stay on same-sex marriages. Those weddings resumed on June 28 following the ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court that anti-gay groups don’t have standing to defend California’s Proposition 8 in court, leaving in place an injunction on the measure from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker.

Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign and one of the organizers of the lawsuit against Prop 8, praised the decision from the court to allow same-sex marriages to continue in California.

“Our opponents have failed in a desperate attempt to deny happiness and protections to lesbian and gay couples and their children and no amount of legal wrangling is going to undo that joy,” Griffin said. “Marriage equality has returned to the Golden State and just as David Blankenhorn, the star witness for Prop 8 came to support marriage equality, I hope others will open their hearts and minds and realize that marriage will soon come to all 50 states in this country.”

As part of their request for a stay, anti-gay groups maintained that Judge  Walker’s injunction on Prop 8 applies only to plaintiff couples and not statewide as California Gov. Jerry Brown and Attorney Kamala Harris have interpreted.

The court set up a schedule on Friday to consider the argument posed by the anti-gay groups. According to the court website, opposition to arguments must be filed by July 22. Anti-gay groups then have until Aug. 1 to issue their reply.

Jon Davidson, legal director for Lambda Legal, called the argument “pure malarky.”

“The California Supreme Court previously held (in the litigation that followed San Francisco allowing same-sex couples to marry back in 2004) that county clerks and registrar/recorders are subject to the control and supervision of these state officials when it comes to the issuance of marriage license,” Davidson said. “Local officials are therefore bound to comply with the injunction by its express terms.”

Chris Johnson is Chief Political & White House Reporter for the Washington Blade. Johnson attends the daily White House press briefings and is a member of the White House Correspondents' Association. Follow Chris

2 Comments
  • Antigays set up their own landmines when the crusade to call LGBT's "too icky" to share OUR country with, got to the point of shredding VALID constitutional law.

    That was when the line was crossed, and now they are doomed (DOMA'd) to dance on those mines.

    TO WIT:

    “The California Supreme Court previously held (in the litigation that followed San Francisco allowing same-sex couples to marry back in 2004) that county clerks and registrar/recorders are subject to the control and supervision of these state officials when it comes to the issuance of marriage license,” Davidson said. “Local officials are therefore bound to comply with the injunction by its express terms.”.

    In other words, their frantic drive to take Newsom's power to equally validate SSM's, will be the point that undoes this current (last) legal ploy.

    (what part of "you lose every appeal" don't today's remaining antigay GET?)

  • Sore losers will always try unto the death. They cannot face the reality that they have lost. As a result, their allegations are getting wilder and wackier all the time against gay people. The more they shoot themselves in the foot the better. As the saying goes, "religion is the last refuge for a man without any argument". This is why opponents of marriage equality did not have a standing to bring their cause in front of the US Supreme Court. They could not prove injury as a result of gay people getting married.

© Copyright Brown, Naff, Pitts Omnimedia, Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.
Directory powered by Business Directory Plugin